Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[sniper]

It was a talk about his book and doping in cycling largely from when he became involved with the Armstrong story. It was a talk arranged by Portsmouth University.

Yeah he did mention Leinders but not in any great detail, also mentioned Tenerife too. But he was pressed on the conflict on interest and he was adament that he's got free reign. I also cant imagine that a reporter with his reputation would risk ruining it by working for a company where his reporting was restricted. He'd lose all credibility.

I have no trouble imagining just that. We're already seeing it. He's simply not talking about Sky, or hardly, unless he's asked about it in a Q&A session.
He's concentrating on Lance. On the past.
He's entitled to, of course.

People, David Walsh is no longer dependend of his newspaper job. Get real. No bandwagon. Pro cycling teams are scared of him. As they should. He connects real dots. Real people/cyclists talk to him.

Didn't he just get a behind-the-scenes freecard from Sky? There is one team that is apparently not afraid of Walsh. I wonder why.

 

[blackcat]

People, David Walsh is no longer dependend of his newspaper job. Get real. No bandwagon. Pro cycling teams are scared of him. As they should. He connects real dots. Real people/cyclists talk to him.

he aint a rube.

do you think in hindsight, he believes EVERYTHING Jonny Vee says, BS.

he may have an epathy and wish to believe JV is pushing cycling in the right direction. but he cannot believe this cleaner than thou. holier like tour de suisse positives and wet nurse cheese

 

[blackcat]

Didn't he just get a behind-the-scenes freecard from Sky? There is one team that is apparently not afraid of Walsh. I wonder why.

Walsh
Swedish
Prisoner
crayfish
parties
Stockolm
Ecuador
syndrome
Assange

 

[Benotti69]

I have no trouble imagining just that. We're already seeing it. He's simply not talking about Sky, or hardly, unless he's asked about it in a Q&A session.
He's concentrating on Lance. On the past.
He's entitled to, of course.

Didn't he just get a behind-the-scenes freecard from Sky? There is one team that is apparently not afraid of Walsh. I wonder why.

Sniper, the Q&A came about as he was invited to do one on his book seven deadly sins and it has snowballed as other venues have asked for him, kimmage and Alan English to do them. Predominantly it is about Armstrong, but no doubt anything cycling related will be answered.

RE Sky/Murdoch. If I was Walsh, I would not be letting Sky/Murdoch know what I know if I am pretty confident that what I am seeing is not normal performances. I would be keeping it all to myself till I had enough hard evidence to pin it to them that they are doping. Then the Sunday Times either run the story and the sports editor, Walsh and others face the wrath of Murdoch or they cant run it and Walsh goes to the Telegraph and publishes it.

I just hope that he is digging behind the scenes and I can only guess he is.

 

[sniper]

Exactly.

And by not reporting he'd risk ruining the credibility of News Corporation most respected newspapers. The Sky team isn't owned by Sky, just bankrolled by them.

It's not about reporting. He'll report allright.
I'd hope for a lot more from Walsh than just reporting.
For instance, he could start by pointing out the numerous inconsistencies in Brailsford's story wrt Leinders.
Expose the many inconsistencies in Sky's zero-tolerance policy.
Report on the many dubious people still working in Team Sky's medical staff.
Etc.
I wish he would, but I'm afraid he won't.

 

[blackcat]

dont be afraid of it, have the courage of walsh's convictions that he fails to pronounce

 

[Wingmanrob]

For instance, he could start by pointing out the numerous inconsistencies in Brailsford's story wrt Leinders.
Expose the many inconsistencies in Sky's zero-tolerance policy.
Report on the many dubious people still working in Team Sky's medical staff.
Etc.
I wish he would, but I'm afraid he won't.

Yeah I wanted to ask that but just didn't feel brave enough to ask infront of 700+ people. I'm lame, I admit it

 

[Dr. Maserati]

are we supposed to believe that? if any of my employees did anything to trash my credibility i would want his head on a plate for dinner and the rest of his body saved for the next business meeting. highly doubtful that murdoch doesn't think the same. people don't become so successful by being soft and letting stuff happen

Yes & no.

Old man Murdoch probably cares little about the Team Sky nor do I believe his credibility would be an issue. Sky are a sponsor, nothing more.
In fact it could show great journalism and enhance the credibility of ST if they were the ones to go after Sky.

However - what you suggest is exactly what other Sunday Times employees may feel - the dreaded middle management, who take it upon themselves of what is or is not a story worth pursuing or publishing.

 

[bobbins]

No one at sky / news int will rock the boat. They hang on every word that bull**** Dave comes out with. If he stood up and told them night was day, they would publish their papers 12 hours early.

Control the press. Believe in better.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No one at sky / news int will rock the boat. They hang on every word that bull**** Dave comes out with. If he stood up and told them night was day, they would publish their papers 12 hours early.

Control the press. Believe in better.

But this is not true.
Both Kimmage when he worked with ST and Walsh have written critical pieces on Brailsford.

In fact it is many other news outlets that are more fawning of Sir Dave.

It's not about reporting. He'll report allright.
I'd hope for a lot more from Walsh than just reporting.
For instance, he could start by pointing out the numerous inconsistencies in Brailsford's story wrt Leinders.
Expose the many inconsistencies in Sky's zero-tolerance policy.
Report on the many dubious people still working in Team Sky's medical staff.
Etc.
I wish he would, but I'm afraid he won't.

Again, this is you wanting Walsh (& every other reporter) to write what your conclusions.

There aren't numerous inconsistencies with Brailsford re Leinders, there is one - he should not have been hired. Walsh asked him, Davy gave his humble answer.
Same applies to the ZPT.
Can you name the "many dubious people still working in TS medical staff"?!

 

[sniper]

...
Again, this is you wanting Walsh (& every other reporter) to write what your conclusions.

Walsh lost his independence in that interview. As long as he doesn't correct or nuance the statements he made in that interview, I'll take the liberty to consider him heavily biassed.
He c/should have chosen to say "I don't know". Instead he said "I believe they're clean". However you wanna spin it, statements like that are straight from the BS drawer. If he wants to be considered independent, he needs to set that record straight.
That's all.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nope.
Walsh lost his independence in that interview. As long as he doesn't correct or nuance the statements he made in that interview, I'll take the liberty to consider him heavily biassed.

What does he correct?
Or more accurately what do you want him to correct?

He c/should have chosen to say "I don't know". Instead he said "I believe they're clean". However you wanna spin it, statements like that are straight from the BS drawer. If he wants to be considered independent, he needs to set that record straight.
That's all.

Again, when you cherry pick people's quotes as you often do then you will come up with silly ideals of what independence is.
Wouldn't being independent mean giving ones own honest opinion?

More importantly - he gave an extreme hypothetical as to if Sky are clean or not. He did not give a line by line clearance.
Here is another interview from DW back in December - “A lot of people think Team Sky are clean. I think they may be but I have to make sure.”

And again - who are the many dubious people in the medical side Walsh is supposed to reveal ?

 

[sniper]

What does he correct?
Or more accurately what do you want him to correct?


Again, when you cherry pick people's quotes as you often do then you will come up with silly ideals of what independence is.
Wouldn't being independent mean giving ones own honest opinion?

More importantly - he gave an extreme hypothetical as to if Sky are clean or not. He did not give a line by line clearance.
Here is another interview from DW back in December - “A lot of people think Team Sky are clean. I think they may be but I have to make sure.”

And again - who are the many dubious people in the medical side Walsh is supposed to reveal ?

Let's just say more than a handful of guys at Sky (you can fill in the names) shouldn't have signed the recent 'no previous connectio to doping' charter.

 

[goggalor]

- "Sky has the biggest budget, so, I think, it's natural they will get the best riders"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ4tyw3t-Pk#t=4m25s

Did he really believe this? This is the statement I have the most problem with.

Best riders = Brad Wiggins, Chris Froome, Mick Rogers and Richie Porte? Nah, they're turning decent to good riders into absolute monsters. Vaughters thinks he'd be dominating the sport with Sky's budget, but he's delusional. Sky are making his guys look like amateurs on a weekly basis, doubling the budget won't fix that. They're doing something differently as a team that puts them on another level. Slipstream already have their rice cakes and eskimo blood, so I guess it must be really, really hard interval training or something.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Let's just say more than a handful of guys at Sky (you can fill in the names) shouldn't have signed the recent 'no previous connectio to doping' charter.

You said numerous people on the medical side?
How is anyone supposed to fill in these names since you appear to be the only one that knows?
I find it amusing that you hold Walsh to a magically high standard to out all these people yet you won't even do that anonymously on an Internet forum.

 

[sniper]

You said numerous people on the medical side?
How is anyone supposed to fill in these names since you appear to be the only one that knows?
I find it amusing that you hold Walsh to a magically high standard to out all these people yet you won't even do that anonymously on an Internet forum.

From the top of my head, some Team Sky employees who've been untruthful by signing the zero-tolerance charter:

Sir Dave Brailsford
Dr Steve Peters
Fran Millar
Tim Kerrison
Rod Ellingworth
Shane Sutton
Dan Hunt
Servais Knaven
Shaun Stephens

To be sure, this is off-topic.
I'm not saying and never said that Walsh should be speculating to this extent. It's clear that there is very little on these guys other than association (well, perhaps the Thorpe-Kerrison link is worth pursuing).
Let Walsh start with correcting the interview, and perhaps some questions about Leinders.
Again, not blaming Walsh that he isn't.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

From the top of my head, some Team Sky employees who've been untruthful by signing the zero-tolerance charter:

Sir Dave Brailsford
Dr Steve Peters
Fran Millar
Tim Kerrison
Rod Ellingworth
Shane Sutton
Dan Hunt
Servais Knaven
Shaun Stephens

To be sure, this is off-topic.
I'm not saying and never said that Walsh should be speculating to this extent. It's clear that there is very little on these guys other than association (well, perhaps the Thorpe-Kerrison link is worth pursuing).
Let Walsh start with correcting the interview, and perhaps some questions about Leinders.
Again, not blaming Walsh that he isn't.

A lot of medical people there

 

[sniper]

A lot of medical people there

did I say medical people? you caught me off guard. I meant the whole staff.
thrust of my previous posts remains: Walsh is not going after Sky.
(which isn't his duty anyway, so I can only nodd in understanding)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

did I say medical people? you caught me off guard. I meant the whole staff.
thrust of my previous posts remains: Walsh is not going after Sky.
(which isn't his duty anyway, so I can only nodd in understanding)

Ya, that's exactly what you said:
"Report on the many dubious people still working in Team Sky's medical staff."

The rest Walsh has already addressed. Which again goes back to Walsh not writing the conclusions you have.

 

[martinvickers]

Ya, that's exactly what you said:
"Report on the many dubious people still working in Team Sky's medical staff."

The rest Walsh has already addressed. Which again goes back to Walsh not writing the conclusions you have.

Dr, THIS is what I meant about "people having to be willing"... As long as sniper is this blatant in his refusal to open his mind, what credibility will her have. and yes, of course it works both ways.

Sniper doesn't want the truth, he wants vindication for his already unshakable beliefs. and that's just pointless...

 

[cineteq]

Any chance of Walsh commenting on Sky's double this coming week?

 

[martinvickers]

Any chance of Walsh commenting on Sky's double this coming week?

Well, I've asked him to, as well as go talk to Hayman. I'm sure I'm far from alone.

 

[sniper]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-hits-back-at-accusations-and-criticism-of-team-sky

Brailsford suggested that Hayman will talk about his time at Rabobank to Sunday Times journalist David Walsh, who is currently embedded with Team Sky at Teide.

promising

 

[Benotti69]

A tweet from Walsh,

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST

People who make more noise than sense say I acted on suspicion in 99. Simply not true. Armstrong bullying Bassons was key moment for me.

So Walsh admits to not being one of the journalists in the pressroom laughing while watching Armstrong sprinting up Sestriere.

Armstrong bullied Bassons after Sestriere when Bassons attacked on the road to Alpe D'Huez.

So in similar vein, why not question Woggins who attacked Landis and begin to doubt Wiggins performances?

We got the excuses of Armstrong, enlarged heart, loss of body weight, higher cadence, yadayada and we are getting similar lies from Sky.

The same goes for the meteroic of Froome, excuses being believed and not questioned.

Walsh seems to be not reading Sky well here.

He is back to being a fan with a laptop.

 

[del1962]

A tweet from Walsh,



So Walsh admits to not being one of the journalists in the pressroom laughing while watching Armstrong sprinting up Sestriere.

Armstrong bullied Bassons after Sestriere when Bassons attacked on the road to Alpe D'Huez.

So in similar vein, why not question Woggins who attacked Landis and begin to doubt Wiggins performances?

We got the excuses of Armstrong, enlarged heart, loss of body weight, higher cadence, yadayada and we are getting similar lies from Sky.

The same goes for the meteroic of Froome, excuses being believed and not questioned.

Walsh seems to be not reading Sky well here.

He is back to being a fan with a laptop.

I am trying to work out your comparsion between Bassons and Landis!